“It gives Barling an opportunity, and they can say no,” Settle said later. “That’s fine. I just wanted to extend the olive branch.”

Based on Tuesday’s discussion, City Administrator Ray Gosack said he will contact Barling’s acting city administrator, Mike Tanner, this week to discuss interest in the proposal.

Settle describes the plan as a solution to Barling’s desire to develop property at Arkansas 22 and Arkansas 59.

Barling has been eyeing specific development in that area before and after a successful vote in November to allow liquor sales in the long-dry city. Last month, a judge voided Barling’s election results based on a 1944 election in which the entire southern half of Sebastian County voted to outlaw liquor sales.

In Fort Smith’s hands, the property would be open to the sale of liquor.

Even so, Barling Director Bill McMahan said he is not ready to give up the land.

“I wouldn’t go for it,” McMahan said Wednesday. “I’m just speaking from my standpoint, but as a director, I’m sure the other people will not be willing to give it up by no means. Liquor or no liquor, there are other things that can be developed there.”

Ivy Owen, executive director of the Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority, which oversees development of Chaffee Crossing, said plans remain in the works at the site in question.

“There are 105 acres at that corner of 59 and 22,” Owen said. “If Barling is able to get liquor by the drink, then there is a mall developer … to sell the property to for about a 70-store mall there.”

Owen said the mall wants to include restaurants that sell liquor.

“If the liquor by the drink doesn’t happen, they are still going to develop it, but it will be more of a strip mall sort of deal with no restaurants,” he said.

Barling Director Bruce Farrar said that while the annexation proposal at first glance “didn’t make a lot of sense to me,” he is not yet passing judgment.

“I want to hear all the particulars before I say yes or no,” Farrar said Wednesday.

Farrar and McMahan both said efforts to reverse the voided vote are in the works.

“There are a lot of people very unhappy with the ruling on it,” McMahan said. “That’s not the end of it I’m quite sure.”

Initiative petitioners, led by Farrar, had gathered enough signatures to get the liquor question on the general-election ballot, then Barling voters approved the measure by a vote of 1,081 to 544 in November.

In voiding the election results, Sebastian County Circuit Court Judge Steve Tabor cited the 1944 election that saw the entire southern half of Sebastian County, not just Barling, outlaw liquor sales.

According to an April 20, 1944, edition of the Southwest American newspaper, the Greenwood district, which includes Barling, voted dry 1,190-463.

“When this thing was passed — and I’m one of the few who remembers when it passed in 1944 — it was voted on by the lower district,” McMahan said. “But I think the judge was in error because when it was voted on, Barling was not an incorporated town. As an incorporated town, I think we ought to have a right to vote on it as an independent town.”

Farrar also envisions a challenge to Tabor’s ruling.

“Demographics in Arkansas have changed drastically since prohibition,” he said. “Times have changed.”

Settle said that if the proposed annexation helps Barling grow, Fort Smith will benefit as well.

“All I’m suggesting is that if Barling would like, we’re willing to help out,” he said. “I just wanted them to be able to grow and prosper. If they ever get the problem resolved, we can undo it.”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.